tv Charlie Rose PBS February 26, 2013 12:00pm-1:00pm PST
captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: in less than four days $85 billion in aubling spending cuts will begin to ripple through the u.s. economy. the impact will be felt across society from education, to medical care to national defense. the sequester deadline
imposed in the summer of 2011 was intended to sharpern the government's focus on the fat debt. president obama pushed for a last minute compromise to lessen the economic damage. >> these impacts will not all be felt on day one. but rest assured the uncertainty is already having an effect. companies are preparing layoff notices. families are preparing to cut back on expenses. and the longer these cuts are in place, the bigger the impact will become. >> these cut does not have to happen. congress can turn them off any time with just a little bit of compromise. >> rose: steve rattner has had a distinguished career in journalism, business and government, instrumental in turning around the automobile industry, and currently chairman of advisors and the economic analyst for msnbc's morning joses and a regular contributer to the "new york times" and financial times. so i'm pleased to have him here to talk about an important issue. and what i want this to be,
in this conversation, because steve knows this subject well is a kind of prime never terms of answering some of the questions that you might have because there's so much information out there. and even to the question of who's idea was the sequester in the beginning. so we will talk about that but first the big question, is there likely to be an agreement? >> no. i think the probability of there being an agreement between now and friday, i think all side was agree is virtually nil there are no discussions under way. there are no-- there's no interchange. there's no real proposals even for the post part so yeah, at's going to happen. >> rose: does that say something bad about both sides. >> i think everything you've seen happen in the last two and a half years on budget policy says something bad about both sides. i think it's appalling that we run this country from deadline to deadline from cliff to precipice, from incline to decline, making it hard for business to plan, creating a level of uncertainty and also as i'm sure we'll get into, cutting all the wrong things and doing it as badly as you could possibly do it. >> rose: and a level of
distrust. nobody wants to state exactly where they want to go, intend to go, willing to go because they think the other side will take advantage of it. >> and i have been a professional negotiator for 30 years. i understand that to some degree. you don't put your best proposal on the table or even necessarily your most serious proposal on the table right at the outset but you have to start talking and these sides are not even talking at the and who due blame for that because the republicans say he hasn't called. and the president says there is no need to call. >> i think there is enough blame to go around for both sides. i think the republicans are not at all united. i think there's an element of the republican party that is very hard right so to speak, that does not want to even talk about revenue increases. the president has made clear without some component of revenue increases he's to the going to talk. so i think this is a symbol of the greater polarization that we have in our society and in washington in particular that both sides are being pulled further and further apart. >> rose: someone said i think secretary geithner said it's to the about economic, it's about politics. >> it's definitely about politics. i think the economics, i've said this to many people am
i'm a democrat but i think hopely a rational one, i have many friends on the republican side. bob and i have said this if the two of us sat down at this table we could do a deal very quickly. but there are more extreme elements in both parties pulling those centrist leaders fort and further apart. >> rose: isn't it an act of leadership to be able to overcome that, isn't that what political leadership is about. >> that is what political leadership is about will and we have a shortage of it right now. >> rose: yeah. whose idea was this sequester and what was their intend? >> i think first of all the president has accepted paternity for this unwanted child. >> rose: yeah. >> and he-- accepted the idea that it was the white house's notion. >> rose: but for a while there they were saying exactly the opposite. >> there was -- look this is not the most important point. >> rose: but it's a worthy point. somebody says it is not our idea, and when they knew it was their idea, it does not say great things about them. >> oddly enough it was a good idea, in a sense. it was a good idea to create a forcing mechanism to bring people together to actually come up with a significant,
substantive solution for a problem that has so far eluded us. the notion of it was not crazy. what's crazy is that we are here four days before the dead lynn, nobody is talking to each other and we're going to go over this edge. >> rose: forcing mechanism, a good idea, even though it was a consequence idea that would wreak havoc with the economy, perhaps, you know, and do a whole lot of damage to people's -- >> the whole idea of it was that it had to be robust enough, it had to be scary enough that it you would force people to do a deal. i don't think the people who agreed to this back-- . >> rose: ever thought. >> ever thought that the system with be so dysfunctional that everyone would agree or allow this to happen rather than actually sitting down and doing something more rational. >> rose: so they both misjudged each other. >> i think they misjudged the situation n a way. they misjudged how untractable these budget politics are. they are ugly, the budget politics. >> rose: and have the republicans changed? i mean was it six months ago they probably would not have said, okay, we're prepped to go over the cliff, and now they say okay, we're prepared to go over the cliff. >> the republicans were not
thought to be likely to go over the cliff. it's not really a cliff, it's more of a gentle incline, because of the defense cuts. it was thought that the defense cuts were sufficiently harsh, that the republicans would say uncle. and would be willing to do some kind of a deal. now the republicans are saying, like my friend george will are saying these cuts are to big deal, 2.3% of the entire federal budget, that is not exactly the right number. we can come to that. >> rose: it comes out of discretionally spending not the huge impact where the big items there. >> jack welch is saying any business can cut 2.3% of its expensesment so now there is an attitude of bravado be on the part of conservatives, yeah, we like this, we want to get some cuts, here is a trillion one of cuts, let's take them. >> rose: there is also this, they say the president is, and is trying to scare everybody when he says these will be the consequences of these cuts when these others are saying well, maybe it's not. >> certainly there's a fair amount of political jockeying going on. the president would very much like, as any sensible
politician would, that if these cuts come and if they are painful, that the american people blame his opponents rather than him. we don't know how bad these cuts are going to be felt. we've-- there's no real precedent for this, exactly. my view is that the cuts will be felt, not immediately, 30 day, 60 day, 90 days. i don't think it will probably be as bad as the white house says but i don't know. >> rose: if you and bob corker from tennessee were sitting here at this table, and he said to you, mr. -- rattner you represented the president. here is the problem. the problem is the president refuses to say what cuts he's prepped to make in entitlements and we all know that's where the issue ends. >> i wouldn't disputement that he has not said it in great detail. he's offered up a few small cuts in entitlements but we now more has to be done am but again it comes back to being a professional negotiator, if you will. you have the republicans on the one hand say nothing revenues, no way, no how, period. >> rose: we've done revenues, they say. >> we have done a whole $650
billion out of what we need of $4 trillion of deficit re-- reduction so, they are say nothing more revenues so, why would the president start bidding against himself, throwing out things he might do if you get close to a deal and you needed to do this to make a deal when the people on the other side are saying we don't even want to talk about what you need. >> rose: can he not do it because of his own con city. >> ee. >> he's under a lot of pressure from the democratic wing of the democratic pert. >> rose: and how strong is the democratic wing of the democratic part and why does he care at this stage of the game. >> he cares because he has an agenda to do. these are his constituents. they helped elect him. he has to be responsive to them. he did float the idea of raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 for medicaid. we don't really know if that could happen again if the negotiations got serious. i'm not even sure that si a good idea. >> rose: that is the interesting thing about t you pointed this out in a weekend television appearance. sometimes they say they will do this and then they change. we are no longer willing to do that. so it's hard to get your finger in terms of exactly where we are talking about, at what stage was this
promise made. and is it still viable. >> but in fairness to batt sides, life moves on. and whatever you said you might have done in the summer of 2011 it's now february of 2013. you're entitled to do something different or say something different if that is the case. we don't know. i would hope that the president would be prepared to make significant changes in entitlements if there was a reasonable response from the republicans on revenues. because here's the basic fact, charlie. without more revenues, and without making changes in entitlements, the math doesn't work. i have been doing math for a long time. math is pie business. the math doesn't work. there's no way that you can cut, you know, cut waste, fraud and abuse out of the federal government, cut defense and get this problem to go away. >> rose: you can't get there without dealing with medicare and with entitlements. >> you cannot get there without dealing with entity -- and you can't get there without dealing with revenue. >> rose: everybody in the room knows that. >> i don't know if everybody in the room knows that. i think all the people leak bob corker and barack obama and myself and anyone-- .
>> rose: john boehner, eric cantor. >> i think john boehner-- you should ask them, i think john boehner probably knows that because he's a sensible guy, eric cantor may well know that but he has the republican wing of the republican party he has to deal with. >> rose: october,so what does this is a about who we are. everybody knows the arithmetic has to work, everybody knows it's not workingment you can't grow your way out of this? >> it would be great if we grew our way out of it but you have to operate on a most likely scenario, in the a gee, great if everything went ferr effectly we would grow out of it. what it is as about it are a couple things. one is i said our politics are pretty dysfunctional. washington is more and more polarized. the second thing it is as is we're living in an era of scarce resource. if you go back to the period after world war 2 when we incurred massive debt, we got that debt down by economic growth, by the gis coming home, by the baby boomers like myself. we now have an aging society. productivity growth is slower. we're living in an age of scarcer resources. so this is really at its heart, this is a fight about the allocation of resource.
how much should go to the elderly. how much to my kids, how much to you and me, how much should go to the rich. how much should go to the middle class. that's what this fight is about. and it's an important fight. i just wish it were being waged in a more intelligent way. >> rose: it's why we have different political parties because different political fill os fees and also crucial to getting elected because unless you get elected you can't be a statesman. >> true, but remember in the past we have managed to come together. 1983 allen greene greenspan-- greenspan social security mission made major changes, 1986 under reagan, tax reform and major changes. president bush 41 raised taxes at a time when he needed to. president clinton did. deals between president clinton and speaker gingrich in the '95, '96, '97 time frame. we have come together a lot of times in our past we just can't seem to do it now. >> rose: what's changed. >> i think what has changed are these two things. one that it is tougher because resources are scarcer. and the numbers are so much bigger. and secondly, i do think we're living in a more polarized era.
i there in one more thing. i think sadly we are living in a more selfish era. i think nobody really wants to pay the costs. for example, an average person at 65, about to enter medicare has paid $122,000 into the medicare system. >> rose: 122,000. >> thousand, they will get back inflation adjusted, they will get back $377,000 dollars over their ellerly years. you don't have to have study a lot of math to know those numbers don't work. and so all this debt we're piling up, these 800, 900 billion dollar deficits, all these promises, we're sticking on our children. and that to me is very depressing. >> rose: everybody believes the way out of this is to do two things. one is to have a gradual process that will put us on a trend that will make significant inroads into the debt, right? >> and part of that is growth of the economy but also it is something like the kind of deal you're talking about, a grand bargain, or whatever it is, that has to do with revenues and having to do with spending cuts. and there was a proposal of that called simpson bowles. >> there was, indeed.
but that is not, not everybody agrees on that. if they did we wouldn't be here. you do have a group, for example, paul krugman who basically says the deficit and the debt really aren't a problem now. >> let's just let this sit. we'll come back to it later. >> rose: the president doesn't even say that and that is a nobel prize winner but also a minority opinion. >> it's a minority opinion but a vocal minority and not 9 only one. you have a group on the other end which basically says we need to cut deficit now it doesn't really matter what it does to the economy or they'll even argue it's good for the economy, essentially they want to go down the austerity route right now. i think most of us think that's a bad idea. i think what simpson bowles advocates and a lot of us do, is this balanced approach. but unfortunately it does not command a majority support at the moment. >> rose: so what's going to change? >> i don't know that anything is going to change. i have to say i joined the steering committee of something called the campaign to fix the debt because we thought last december, a six month process, we would have a big deal. we would be done. we-- people would make
sacrifices and we would have a solution. now it's very hard to see that. i think unfortunately what we are looking at is a whole series of these kinds of crises, deadlines, as i said inclines, declines, and we just work our way through it painfully, bit by bit. >> rose: here's what i don't understand. the president has four years in office. he wants to do things. he wants to be part of history. you know, as long as we have this, it's going to be in a sense, he's hostage to this. and therefore why doesn't he take the risk and use the bully pulpit. >> i totally agree with you about that. i think his second term could well be defined for the worst if we do not solve this problem. i think he would argue he is using the bully pulpit. you showed a clip from earlier today. he's been out around the country, all over the place. and here's the funny part. the republicans when he was just in the white house said well, why don't you get out. why don't you talk about this, why don't you tell your story. well now he's doing and they are saying why aren't you in the white house worrying
about this problem. >> exactly right. >> it takes two to tango and i'm not telling you he has done everything perfectly. i'm not saying he shouldn't have played more golf with john boehner, i get all that. but i just think these two sides are so far apart, i'm not sure that if you dug up lyndon johnson today that he could solve this problem. >> rose: the president, i believe, believes that all the schmoozing in the world wouldn't have made a difference. on the other hand people say we will never know until he tries it. >> i think unfortunately, a we'll never know. it's probably too late for that. we're-- . >> rose: was it too late when this crisis first arose. >> well, as i said, i think we'll never note. i wish the president had done a little bit more of the schmoozing, a little more of the golf. look i'm more sympathetic to him. i wouldn't want to do it if i were in his shoes either. i think he tends to approach this analytically, here's my position, what's their position. >> rose: but i'm adding -- >> there is a relationship aspect. >> rose: i'm adding the extra dimension, he doesn't believe 2 would work, i think if he thought it would work without, we do telephone. i don't think it's because of his well noted disdain
for certain politics and for washington. if he thought this would work, he would do it now. >> so presumably thinks it wouldn't work. he's basically looking at the facts and saying if we can't do this in the roosevelt room of the white house we're not going to do it on the golf course. obviously lynn gone-- lyndon john on and bill clinton would have a different view. >> rose: or abraham lincoln. >> you watch lincoln, you can't go out and hire two bagmen from albany in the modern world to go out and give exiting congressman's brother-in-laws jobs as postmaster general in ohio it doesn't work that way any more. it's a different world. and when bill clinton sat down with newt gingrich, newt gingrich could deliver his caucus, there is no evidence that john-- we know john boehner can't deliver his caw discuss-- caucus so, again i just think every political scientist who has studied this has found by all the statistical measures much greater polarization, not just something the press says or whatever. it exists. >> rose: this is the question, my sense is that
the president is given more leeway by his caucus than speaker boehner is given by his caucus. and that in fact speaker-- the majority leaders pelosi was prepared in a sense to give him some flexibility in terms of making the negotiations it during the first term at the end. an even now. >> that's my view. if i said that some people would say you're just a partisan democrat saying it but that is my view. you had, speaker boehner had these 87 or whatever republicans who said they would rather see us go off the fiscal cliff, default on our debt this we rather see all these things happen than vote for even a penny of a tax increase and even in the end when we had that tax deal tend of last year which increased taxes on 0.7% of americans, you still had a large number of republicans vote against it. >> rose: are we in a better position economically than some might expect because of the disfunction in washington, housing, a new balance in terms of our energy capacity to serve our
own energy needs and some other issues that make us more competitive than many people perceive when they used to talk about the decline of america. >> there's still a lot to be said about america. we have the most resilient economy of certainly developed countries. we have flexible labor force, we're innovaters in technology, still leaders in many industries am there's a lot of good things to be said. ands you are implying the economy has gone through kind of a self-correcting process. it made some adjustments but it's a bit like asking somebody who has been injured to heal themselves as opposed to bring modern medicine to bear. the government isn't helping. the government is actually hurting so the recovery in the house magazine market that he lewded to exist. it's true. but it's happening all by itself. the government ended up doing virtually nothing to help the housing industry. the changes in our competitiveness, the automobile industry which i happen to be involved, the government did rescue those companies, but what's been going on since in terms of the workforce becoming more competitive is all happening in the private sector. and the government is creating this level of uncertainty that val dangerous.
>> rose: because you know as much about this as anybody, where do we stand in terms of the money used to bail out the companies, the auto companies, both chrysler and general motors. >> we spent or invested, if you will, $82 billion in that whole industry. and when the dust settles, the country of taxpayers will have lost probably about $15 billioning maybe a little less but in return for that, we now have a haley automobile industry. chrysler is doing incredibly well. gm is making large profits. the suppliers are back on their feet, ford is doing well. >> rose: you didn't lose a whole bunch of jobs. >> we didn't lose a whole bunch of jobs. the auto industry has been adding jobs in the past two years and i would argue that this is what government is there to do. i know this sounds self-serving but i would argue that this is what government is there to do. and markets fail, it's time for government to do what it can do. and it did it and i think if will work out well. >> rose: what about aig. >> aig is obviously a highly emotional issue. it is one of these things where you hold your nose. but i think in the end the government did the right thing. because the system the way it was set up, if aig had
failed it would have brought down our financial system, unfortunately. >> rose: you believe most of the decisions made by paulson, geithner, chairman of the fed and then later by geithner, chairman of the fed, bernanke and whoever the economic advise never the white house were the right decisions? >> i think in the fullness of time, those guys are going to go down as heroes, or at least they should. have i written this, said it, it not a popular position. i wrote a piece for the times the other day sporting my former boss and friend tim geithner and was pymoried for it i think these guys saved the economy. looks, here is the part that bothers people. what bothers people is that the average american has lost 7, 8% --. >> rose: they weren't bailed out. >> they were to the bailed out. for the middle class out there it's really hard. i get that, tim geithner gets that, ben bernanke gets that and meanwhile wall street is doing pretty well. until today the stock market was practically at a new high. we get that. >> rose: but the argument they make, people who are offended by, don't necessarily agree with you,
and warren buffett also agrees with exactly what you said and hero is even the word he uses as well. they believe that some how there was, it was not only favouritism towards wall street, but at the same time tarp and all that, but at the same time, they approached these issues with a wall street men allity. >> tim geithner never had a job in the private sector except for a brief period-- . >> rose: but tim, for all -- >> ben bernanke never had a job in the private sector. >> rose: one taught at princeton and one was chairman of the new york fed but at the same time works did they deal with and who were the people that have most of their -- >> i think in retrospect there may have been a few things you could have done differently to extract more sacrifice out of wall street in terms of, for example, how much stock the government took in return for its loans. i have talked to hank paulson about it, i know why he thought about it the way he did. i'm not here to criticize him. i know what it is like to make those decisions. i they they are demargin, those guys were prisoners of the system in which it was so interlocked and intertwined that unless they
did the things they did it would have been much worse for middle america because it would have brought down the whole economy with them. >> rose: to make a headline here, once again, the sequester, four days now, $8-- $85 billion, you believe that there is no way that they can avoid the disaster because nobody is willing to negotiate at this stage. >> i believe there's no way for us to avoid the sequester. a disaster will unfold over time, we still have a chance to avoid that. but there is no sign anybody is ready to do this. >> rose: thank you, steve, steve rattner, back in a moment. stay with us. 50 years of feminism is investigated by a new documentary called makers: women who make america. it covers a number of landmarks both positive and negative in the fight for equality. the publication of the feminism mystique by better fern and, the founder of ms magazine by gloria steinem and failure of the equal rights amendment it also tells us stories of every day women such as catherine switzer, the first woman to run the boston marathon. here is a look at the the trailer.
>> honey, when was the last time you baked a cake. >> last week, dear. >> i was brought up in the betty crocker era. you had to get married and you had to have a child. >> that's what it was about, to meet the guy, to get married, to have babies, to be the president of the pta. i can't even stand going back to thinking about those days, what it was like for women. did i ever fake an orgasm, you bet i faked one. >> every place i went for interviews the only thing they wanted to know was can you type. >> your high score on the scholastic aptitude test indicates that you can become a good secretary. >> landlords felt single women couldn't eastern you have to pay for the apartment. and if you could earn enough, you must be a hooker. ♪ i feel the earth move ♪ under my feet ♪.
>> it was like a tsunami, it was like something was boiling under the earth. and we could bring it up. ♪ . >> it was as if a great flood light had gone on and it illuminated everything. >> we were so idealistic, we were so energetic. we were so in your face. and there were so many of us. >> we had to change the system. everything in the workplace, everything in the political sphere, everything in the domestic sphere. >> what we are talking about is a revolution and not a reform. >> it was exhilarating. it was also somewhat torturing. because we were breaking new ground. >> it turned out that it was easier to kick down the door than to transform society. >> the american people saw what the movement was all about. and they said no thanks. >> it woke up what they call a moral majority. and they have grown and grown and grown.
>> our message was family, appreciate the woman, appreciate the mother. and her role in developing the next generation. >> i don't think my mother ever really laid out the nuances of the struggle between career and family. >> somehow you end up doing all the laundry and 90% of the grocery shopping. >> we need to live in a world where men do half, women let them do half. and being a parent is not a full-time job for a woman and a part-time job for a man. in order to get people's attention, you got to blow a loud trumpet. you got to beat the drum loudly. and nobody listens to you when you go quietly into the night. >> the woman's movement is the biggest social movement in the history of the planet earth. because it affected everybody. it really impacted how i saw myself and how i fought for
a seat at the table. >> what women were looking for is not that guarantee that they would succeed, but at least the opportunity to try. >> when you hear so many people around you telling your story, you then come to understand that it's not really your story. it's a lot of people's story. >> rose: makers runs tomorrow night on pbs. joining me now two women featured in the fill, gloria steinem, she is an icon and a legend in the women's movement. also next generation feminist amy richards. i'm pleased to have both of them at this table. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: great to see you. >> thank you. >> rose: so what question does this film answer? >> well, i would say there are two things, the past.
>> rose: yeah. >> and history. and we have been half of the past. and 1% of history. so this is the other half of history. i mean it's not just women's history, it's history. >> rose: do you have a sense that the 21st century is a century for women? >> no, i definitely think so and hope so but of course it does depend on what we do every day. it's not automatic. but i think what is happening now in the second half of the women's movement because they have to last a century, you know to be permanent is that we are gunning to understand the connections. we're beginning to understand that you can't perpetuate racism without controlling reproduction and that means more discrimination against women. that the biggest indicator of whether a country is violent within itself or will be and will use military violence against another country. is not poverty. is not natural resources. is not degree of democracy or religion. it's violence against females.
and when that gets discussed at all those meetings in switzerland, then the chiefs of state go then we will begin someplace. >> right. >> well, also i think that one of the stories in makers is the story of katherine switz we are who was the first woman to run the marathon, the boston marathon and she crashed it in '67 signing up for it, they didn't know, and then there was a great scene where they are like there is a girl in my race. five years later women are allowed to run the boston marathon. 40 some years later women are at least i think half the entries in most of the marathons around the world. so i think it shows to me that once you document the history, then you know to your question of is the 2 1st century the century of women t might be because now that the attention is there and the resources are there and the access is there. >> it's contagious. we do what we see. not what we're told. >> and if we see that it's possible and we're not crazy to think that the social order could be more equal,
then we go forward. and that's what makers does. >> yeah. and it tells stories. >> yes. >> it's crucial, it's crucial, i think that it tells personal political, global stories. because our brains are organized on narrative, statistics, really don't mean that much to us. >> i introduced you as a new generation feminist. >> i'm getting older though. >> other than -- >> not compared to me. >> exactly. >> other than the fact of a history-- do you two from different generations share the same essential ideas about what the agenda is? >> well, i mean our experiences are different but the global kind of umbrella concerns are the same i would say, how would you say it. >> i think we were also a product of our generations in some ways too. gloria has a lot more faith than legislative change and political change can get us out-this mess. and having grown newspaper a
generation that has been a little more tainted by traditional politics. i'm not so sure. and so i think maybe approach sometime differents. i also think that i have come of age with a lot more friends, working at cbs, working at goldman saks, working at price waterhouse. and so sorted of infiltrating those places with feminism, not exclusively doing, and i think that is again a generational shift. i think that you can be a feminist wherever you are. and not have to as i used to say sort of do it as an extra kuric lar activity between 3 and 5 every day. >> so where are you now? >> i'm-- i mean i run something called feminist camp and i run something called soapbox and i spent a lot of time as does gloria on college campuses and i think both of us lev that experience because it renews our sense that feminism is not history but that it is very present. >> rose: an active force. >> totally active and present. and statistically more people today identify with feminism than in any past
generation. >> rose: but was there a lull at all. was there a sense that at some point it began to be less part of the consciousness at all? >> in my experience, i was, i think, not prepared for the force of the back will be. i was not prepared for the fact that one entire political party, the republican party would be taken over by anti-feminist force, many of whom used to be democrats. they aren't real republicans, you know. who supported the equal rights amendment first. so yeah, i think i had an idea that once we won majority support for all the issues which we have won long ago, actually, that we would have more change at the top because i underestimated this 30% of the countries that's in backlash. >> rose: are there great intellectual battles going on within feminism? >> i would say there's really healthy fierce discussion about what's effective. >> what are those conversations, those discussions about?
>> well, they're often about okay, should we focus totally on something we already know about and how do you like equal pay or should we at the same time move forward and say wait a minute, we could have an attributed value to work that is done in the home whether by men or by women. make that tax deductible, you know, there are mainly i would say tactical arguments. and also arguments based on our personal experience, i think. because we've all come from different places. and that's very healthy. i would say probably we don't have enough of those because we're a little hyperaware of the ridiculous idea that women can't get along. so we're maybe a little more reluctant to disagree in public than we should be. >> i think you take the abortion issue which has been long associated with feminism. and i think you know older people have a mark that is like you know legal or not legal, legal, that was what the argument was for so long.
and ultimately roe v. wade decided that and there's been many backlashes. i think younger people entering the conversation say oh, well, pro-choice to what extend and for whom and how long. and the debate has shifted but it's still the same debate is it a women's choice or the government's choice over women. and yet i think the nuances of the semantics in that has evolved and it's not tension per se. but it's more trying to figure out what's the right tactic. do we focus on health care or do we focus on training doctors. >> it gets to be an umbrella thing because reproductive freedom means the freedom to have children as well as not to have children, right so it's a fundamental human right. and though i think in my experience the women's movement was pretty internationally always from the beginning it's much more so now. >> was the idea of the empowerment of women a term used and used cross the board. i mean you have corporations sponsoring the empowerment of women and spending, you know, some foundation money for that and you have people,
conferences about the empowerment of women is that part of one and part of the what feminism is today, the global reach of the empowerment? >> yes, although mi a little uncomfortable with the verb because i think we have to empower ourselves. >> that's why i ask the question. >> it can be dangerous. >> let me hear you out on that. >> well, you know, we create an atmosphere in which we can be empowered. if are you with people who think you're smart, you're smart. and if they think you're dumb, you're dumb. and if-- and empowerment is a little bit benevolent pat erbl lism like coy empower you. >> i think that there is a shall a lot of celebrating. >> there is a lot of celebrating. there's women's business coalitions, women in finances. and i think that that is a fix of project like makers different because i do think there was more of a litmus test of not how much individual women have succeeded but how much have
those individual women's successes made it possible for other women to succeed. i think that that is the difference of the tension. it's not just about celebrating those who have broken the glass ceiling, as it were, but how much did their breaking that glass ceiling did they reach the arm, you know, out or back to the people who have not yet attained that. and so it's empowerment but making sure the empowerment trickles down. >> it's not just breaking the glass ceiling. it's getting off the sticky floor of the ghetto which pink coloured ghetto which is where most women are. we done hear about that as much as we do about the glass ceiling. that is just a few women. and also the supposition is that everybody wants what those guys want, which actually is killing them a lot of them. you know so, we don't necessarily want the same thing. >> rose: how much of, so there is, i'm sorry, just read jody cant or's species about sheryl standberg what has a new book called leanne. what is that about? >> i think what she is
asking women to do is to rise to their potential and looking a little bit as a woman in her early 40s and who has had tremendous amount of success, and saying i have been incredibly lucky. i've done this and i believe other women can do it too. and they just have to lean in and push harder and ask more of themselves. she really does a good job of saying to other women, i believe in you, do you believe in yourself and realizes that that sometimes is the missing ingredient is that women second-guess themselves. and they talk themselves out of it. and she is sort of saying don't do that. i believe in you. and so you should believe, you know, and she has lots of examples. >> rose: you read the book. >> event read the book but i read lots of her articles and seen her speeches. when she left google she said she tried to get women to go with her. few wanted to, from google to facebook and noticed that women were much more hesitant to put themselves out there whereas men were naturally more willing to put themselves out there. >> rose: where does that come from? >> being feminine. >> or being masculine.
>> rose: no, i'm-- i'm learning here, why did women say, more men wanted to go with her and take a risk and go to over to facebook. >> uh-huh. >> rose: then-- more men wanted to were prepared to go than women. why. >> when we sit at a dinner table why do men talk more than the women. because the women feel it's not feminism or they introduce many topics until one, you know, interests the men at the table. but actually i have read her book and i think that actually, i mean it's very important what amy is size saying about leaning in, because she is talking about intlernlizes sexism, that holds you back. that the same thing that might hold a man back from playing the violin or something because it's not masculine or doing ballet because, i don't know. but it's internalized but what she is saying that i think is the most radical and important is that men can and should raise children as much as women,
if men want to have children, they have to raise children. and she says that the single most important career choice you're going to make if you want to have children, is who your partner is. that that is the single most important career choice. and that is a profoundly radical message because men raising children are being raised to raise children is what allows men to be whole people and develop, you know, all the human qualities. >> rose: and they don't have to be-- they all have to be kind, smart, generous, they must have been their heart and within their mind-set, the willingness and desire to spend as much time. >> raising children as women do. >> rose: as its women do. >> or maybe more than half since we spent a year actually having the child. >> well, it's like you what say, gloria, when are you asked, in talking about makers and defining of quality, that we've mostly design-- defined equality by
how well women have replaced men but we equally have to define it by how well men replace women reasons right. and that's such an important message of her book and i hope that people understand it. because-- . >> rose: is that the singular message of the book. >> no, it's not the singular message as amy points out it is also about leaning in. but what worries me is that she is trying to say two things in a one focus culture. she's saying that internal barriers result from external barriers. you know, that we're trained to be feminism and not talk and not earn that much more money than-- whatever, whatever form it takes. and that creates an internal barrier. but she is not at all neglecting the external barriers. and i notice that the press seems to be only able to think she's saying one thing. either as internal or exterrible. >> are you talking about a
columbine marined out. >> i haven't read that column but probably, yeah, right. >> and it's more-- less reaction to the book. >> well, but let's he just stay with this for a moment. or the piece by the cover story from "new york times" by jodi cantor to women writing about sandberg and her book. >> no, i do think it's very hard. i have this problem. >> women writing about women. we yes, there's nothing -- >> and successful women. >> yeah, right. >> but it's very hard to make a larger comment. the news is genderized. into soft news and hard news. 10eses it into feminism news stories and masculine stories, again rallities, statistics, conclusion. everything about the media tends to be some what polarized. her book which is not saying either/or but and is arriving in a polarized culture and therefore maybe misinterpreted. and i had this experience with revolution from within because i was also talking about internal reflections
of external barrier swons what is the misinterpretation that is taking place. >> that instead of-- that they are thinking either/or so they are saying well, if she is saying that women should try harder than it must be women's fault if they're not doing well. in fact what she is saying is the external barriers are real and terrible and we have to, you know, and they have created internal barriers we have to be aware of. >> now where does ann marrie slaughter come into this conversation. >> i don't know. amy will have to take this over. >> ann mar yee slaughter was troubling to me because she from my perspective will accomplished a huge amount. she had been intended professor, she had gotten very har in the state department. she had raised two kids, a wonderful relationship with her husband, good friends an all of that. and she was doubting her success and i think that there is a cultural problem that only honors excellence in women so, you have to be resultly clinton, and katie
couric, barbara walter, you have to be at the top of your field in order to feel sthau have succeed. and i think that's dangerous because i think there are women were increedly -- >> yeah. >> and i think that only only southern women will ever succeed in defining success. >> -- many problems with. >> you lost none of your -- >> okay, but before i leave this, how much of the issue that women face is because of all its things men, his modelsing all this kind of stuff is in their head. put there by where the society and the culture is, a predominantly male oriented society. >> no, well that's the
question really that her book is asking. or asking to be aware of. because it's probably somewhat different for everybody. but any oppressive system only works because it's internalized. here's the good news. we are adjustable. here's the bad news, we are adjustable. you know. so he is we, we're the products of our culture. >> yeah. >> and the external barriers become internal ones. and she is saying we have to address both, not just one but both. >> okay am talking about -- standberg, a friend of mine, know her well, interviewed her before, she is coming on this program in a week or two to talk about this book. here she s since we have been talking about her n the filmmakers, roll tape. >> my husband is an amazing partner. but doesn't feel guilty. i feel guilty. share il sandberg is the chief operating officers of facebook and a mother of two.
she has publicly urged men to take a stronger role in the home. >> my brother-in-law once said to me that he was baby-sitting. it is like dude, you're not baby-sitting, you're the father. that's called fearing, parenting. it's to the baby-sitting. >> we need to live in a world where men do half, women let them do half. and being a parent is not a full-time job for a woman and part-time job for a man. >> we also in this conversation mention katherine switzer who ran the boston marathon in 1967. here's a clip of her. >> we walk to the start. and the gun went off and down the street we went. so there we were, anee bregs, the 50-year-old maleman and me 209-year-old college student and my boyfriend tom miller, ex-all american football player. when other runner was come by they would say oh, it's a girl. and they were so excited. and all of a sudden the
press truck is in front of us and they're taking pictures of us, on this truck was the race director, feisty guy by the name of jock sumpel. he just stopped the bus, jumped off, and ran after me. and he just grabbed me and screamed at me, get the hell out of my race and give me those numbers. he had the fiercest face of any guy i had ever seen. and all of a sudden big tom, my boyfriend came with a streak and gave jock the most incredible cross body block and sent him flying right through the offer and landed on the curb. and all of this happened in front of the press truck. journalists got very aggressive, what were you trying to prove, are you a suffer jet, a crusader, whatever that is, i said what, i'm just trying to run. >> what is the driving agenda for you in 2013? >> humanity, i don't know how to say it.
>> rose: that's pretty good. >> i mean it is so-- and i would say solutions to problems. because the great joy of social justice movement are the-- oh that's why, and we can fix that. you know, and as i was saying understanding the connection between violence against females whether it is female infant side or domestic violence which is huge in this country, is what normalizes other violence both in the street and in the army, is huge. i mean because we've always known about tribal societies that the more polarized the gender roles, the more violent the society. and now we have demonstrated about 100 modern cultures that it's true among so, this profoundly affects our foreign policy. it should profoundly affect-- in order to address the root of the problem we have to address that which normalizes violence. and that also means sometimes that we have to
understand that politics are also expressed as religions. it's not spirituality. it's politics in the sky. it's, you know, making god look like the ruling class and we have to be willing to talk about this. >> rose: and so what is your driving passion. >> well, i think that what the women's movement has done such a great job of is valuing the feminism and making women stronger. and yet i think we continue to overinflate the masculine and without deflating it, i think that we have to stop trumping it and allowing it to sort of dictate our lives and i say that as somebody who was raised in 1970 and who was empowered, you know, i went to first grade and they asked me to sing the national anthem and i sang i am woman, hear me roar because my mother told me that was the national anthem. so i very much came of age with this feminism-- feminist spirit. and yet i still sometimes. >> rose: there's the secret. women who tell their daughters to say i'm a woman,
hear my roar. >> and yet you know, you still become guilty of saying oh is the wmba as good as the nba. am i really as good of an athlete as a feel athlete. am i really deserving of that salary or am i not, and i think that where we are now is that, and i tried to use my own example, you have to believe it it's an age-old lesson that carol gilligan talked about in a different voice but the same message that share il sandberg is talking about today. i think we've done more of the external revolution and we have to make our internal revolution catch up to that. >> rose: what do you want to get out of this film. what would you like people to get and receive from watching this film which will be on pbs tomorrow night. >> many of the stories that are in there are people like catherine switzer and maria, people who didn't seek out feminism per se. they set out-- . >> rose: can i ask this there are people who lived feminism rather than necessarily -- >> yes. >> that's the same thing, actually. we had had an awakening moment and their awakening moment was sports, right.
but they didn't, i mean something, something unfair happened to them and they responded. >> rose: what was your awakening moment? >> gosh, that's hard. i think-- you know, i think in real life little kids have awakening moments when they say it's not fair. are you not the boss of me. right. so i think i had that very young. and then i went through all of my teenage years being trained to giggle and laugh and saying how smart are you, to know what time it is. and then then i had to come out of that again. you know. and what brought me out of it was realizing how sinister an crazy and wrong it was that one in three american women needed an abortion at some people in their life when it was illegal. and was made to risk her life and enter a criminal underground. and so that you know that
made it very clear to me that the whole problem is trying to control reproduction. and i just began to see the scope of the problem. >> rose: and you? >> in 1992 i did a voter registration drive. and i thought i was doing it to reach out to underserved communities, meaning mostly poor and mostly nonwhite communities. midway through this i thought oh wait, it does a disservice to me if i live in a democracy that is not fulfilling its promise to democracy. and it was that just moment of sort of thinking externally and realizing internally of thinking it wasn't about me and realizing it was about me. and i think that that is what feminism does, that's what the women's movement does is you start out thinking it's about you a little bit or it's about other people and then you realize oh my gosh, we're all in this together. >> i mean movements grow and so we don't need a new civil rights movement. we are not living in a post racist age. we are not living in a post feminism-- feminist age. we need to continue. >> rose: will we ever great to a post feminist age.
>> maybe, yeah, i think so. because there was a feminist age before, i mean, in original cultures where there didn't even have male and female, he and she in the language. and then we got so bananas we gave gend tore a table and a chair so you know, we know that-- . >> rose: i swear to you you i done know what gender a table is. >> la. but you know, i just say that because i think it's heartening to know it's not human nature to have this kind of crazy division. >> an before it was called women's liberation and the well's movement and those became bad wordsing women's liberes, then feminists. i think the feminist movement is probably the strongest lablingt that comes out of it. but i think you see more and more people who are, you know, benefitting from feminism and living feminist lives and that is the most amazing thank you and most amazing. >> every year for a long time people have been doing
polls, you know, do you consider yourself a feminist, people who voted. okay this last time, not only did more young women than older women both over 50%, over half self-identify as feminist but 30% of men. >> i think more people today when they do resist the label feminist it's not because of the stereotypes around feminism but feeling they are not good enough to be a feminist. i hear a lot of people who think if i'm going to call myself a feminist it means i have to say, i have to interject any time something sexest is said or get fired from my job if i demand equal pay. some women feel like they don't want to take those great as risk and feel they are not entitled to the label. i think that is false. but in another generation the it was people weren't identifying because it was bad and now the association is i can't identify because i'm not that good. >> unless are you rush limb baurx of course, which is-- no, but that's very smart. i never thought of that way. that's right. i think they do come to think that it's some kind of
specialty. and actually, you're either f you are a female human being you have a choice. are you a feminist or masochist. i mean are you really, either are you a full human being and equal or you are not. regardless of what you're able to do about it. >> right. >> great to see you. >> thank you. >> gloria steinem, amy richards, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
>> announcer: the following kqed production was produced in high definition. ♪ calories, calories, calories! >> wow, it rocked my world! >> it just kind of reminded me of boot camp. >> i don't know what you had but what i had was great. >> it almost felt like country club food to me. >> don't touch. it's hot! >> i gotta tell you, you people